USB 3.0 DAC - Let The New Revolution Begin!

[pitbull]

Greetings,

 

Regardless of whether there's a DAC for it currently or not - just want to inform you that USB 3.0 is already possible on certain Macs: CalDigit do a PCIe card for MacPro and a ExpressCard/34 for MBP laptops.

 

I currently have the PCI card sitting in my early 2009 MacPro and it works quite happily with IcyBox HDD docks and external HD enclosures.

 

So whilst I agree a USB 3.0 DAC is not a necessity for audiophilia, bring it on anyway and let's see how it goes...

 

Regards.

 

PitBull.

 

[logicsound]

qs225917

 

"Fortunately i'm in a position to use DXD, my lowly USb dac has no issues with it connected by only a plain old crappy printer USb cable. The point is that i have several dXD files from 2l.no, I have their 24/96 and 24/192 brothers and sisters as well."

 

Wow you really can play with true 24/352 DXD files! That is pretty cool, what DAC are you using when you play them, that can handle that data stream?

 

Buffalo32S or the Buffalo II?

 

The Bruce Brown and the folks at Puget Sound when they recorded at all resolutions like DXD sound the best.

 

Just found the link to Twisted Pair from the previous DXD thread. Pretty cool. This diyAudio thread speaks about a full DXD data stream being accepted by a Buffalo32s with an input capacity to 400kHz PCM.

 

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/twisted-pear/143315-twisted-pear-audio-buffalo32s-es9018-dac-87.html

 

But the Twisted Pair site lists the latest generation of the Buffalo II, based on the ESS Sabre32 Reference (ES9018) DAC chip, only being able to accept Direct DSD, I2S and S/PDIF inputs supporting up to 32-bit/192kHz.

 

Can S/PDIF receiver sets support DXD data streams?

 

I will have to explore this further.

 

[logicsound]

Hi Chris

 

"Hi logicsound - Just a point of clarification. In the late 1980s it was already clear IPv4 did not allow enough IP addresses and by the early 1990s IPv6 was already in motion."

 

Kinda off the topic but interesting none the less. Actually, 4 years ago, 2007, the number IP address allocated actually fell!

 

From the 2007 IP report:

"In 2007, the number of available IPv4 addresses went down from 1300.65 million to 1122.85 million, a difference of 177.8 million addresses. The number of usable addresses is 3706.65 million, so on January 1, 2007 we were at 64.9% utilization and a year later we're at 69.7%."

 

With use of NAT the number of address was expanded to over 4 Billion. It seems like that would last for at least 10 years at the then growth rate.

 

But a little gadget named the Iphone was released in January 2007 - this led to a very unexpected source of demand for IP addresses - internet capable handsets. Actually an explosion. As they say the rest is history.

 

Technology is on an explosive growth curve. The second derivative of Moore's law is actually going positive (growth rates are going parabolic). Great book to read Ray Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near".

 

I understand the major move to IpV6 is going to be a bear, maybe it'll slow some things down a bit.

 

[logicsound]

PeterSt

 

"I thought you said this with a reason ? (and you said it to me)"

 

No this was not directed at you at all. Sorry if you took it that way. It was a general statement.

 

"Not important. Well, it takes 32/705.6 for input in the non-commercial version.

Sorry, couldn't help myself."

 

I'd still like to know. A Buffalo II? Can you transmit the 32/705.6 over S/PDIF or USB? Now you really have me intrigued.

 

I was checking out the Antelope Zodiac Gold DAC - it will accept up to a up to 384 kHz sampling rate over a USB 2.0 connection. I will do some checking and may have to give that one go. I'm sure there must be a link on CA somewhere.

 

From their website:

 

64-BIT TECHNOLOGY

"Sophisticated 64-bit algorithms allow precise control over our Acoustically Focused Clocking (AFC) and Jitter Management; two critical components to improve audio via clocking. The incoming digital signal is brought to life with this unique 64-bit technology, resulting in smooth and detailed audio whatever the method of digital connectivity."

 

"ANTELOPE PERFORMANCE USB

Custom implementation of the USB chip leads to extreme audio performance and comprehensive support for your system. There are user selectable modes tailored to suit both Mac and PC; and with a data transfer rate of 480Mbits flawless audio is achieved with native drivers."

 

Wow! Now we are getting some where.

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

Wow! Now we are getting some where.

 

Haha. But I guess this is since you dive into matters more ?

Well, what did I tell you.

 

But don't overdo it. Or better : don't jump to conclusions too fast. Read read read until you're dead. Next day again.

Take a year for it and you will be able to get to some conclusions yourself before hearing it from others (so often being wrong ... well, ... this thread perhaps ^-). So :

 

I don't think any Buffalo will take 32/384. But maybe; I don't follow everything and all which is out of my "needed" scope anyway. So, in the Buffalo case the "takes i2s" is a far better example. That's how you read that. Read more (day in day out) and you'd know that the chip can (as about any chip will), but for any "Buffalo" there's no interface. Not yet.

Btw, you asked the question "so you really listen to 24/358.2 DXD" and didn't get an answer to that (I think). Without further real judgement, this would be a manufacturers answer, and your conclusion should be "aha, so, No". Mind you, I do not suggest by any means that the poster concerned is a manufacturer. It's about how to read things and possible conclusions, for you to dig out further (as could I do at this time, which I did NOT).

 

What you quoted from Antelope ? nice commercial talk and it tells totally nothing. Not to me, and not to you when everything would be "ok". For example (and out of context) :

 

and with a data transfer rate of 480Mbits flawless audio is achieved with native drivers

 

Would this be about Asynch USB it only tells about the data transfer rate. At the normal USB (2) rate, this just *is* (about) that rate, and you wouldn't be able to stop it. For this reason it is total non-sense to tell it, or commercial talk if we put it more nicely.

 

Another one (don't laugh) :

 

Not important. Well, it takes 32/705.6 for input in the non-commercial version.

 

Although it is 100% true, I challenged you to shoot in your foot (instead of me). It goes so easy. But please read again. It says "non-commercial version". This should tell you something like "I have it, but you can't get it". So, read well; There's not only much to read, but also should be read for the real merits of it. I don't say this is easy.

 

One more :

 

No this was not directed at you at all. Sorry if you took it that way. It was a general statement.

 

I will never say I write well, but now *you* have to. There's no context which makes me think this was not addressed to me. Read back if you want. However, there *is* context that I'm this manufacturer. Do you ever read signatures ? you should.

During my previous posts I didn't know how to make it more obvious what DAC I am talking about without offending some rules here. Quite some posts of mine were on this limit. But

 

I'd still like to know. A Buffalo II?

 

... you still don't know. A really nice job. :-)

 

I'm making fun now with a good mood, because I take it that you changed your mind a little about your own knowledge. So, it is intended well. Maybe before it quite wasn't. But now you see how people like me make can fairly easy jump to (correct) conclusions about perceived "knowlegde" and the real merits of a first post like what's in this thread.

By now though, it looks like you didn't set your mind so much at all, and instead just wasn't "knowledgeable" enough. But mind you, nobody would take it like so because of your specifics on USB 3 data and all. So why would you know that, and not the stuff which actually preceeds all of it. But it became clear (at least to me) after a few more posts of you, and *then* it would be about some mind setting.

... but not. So, without any proud you can admit it all, which clearly changes people's minds about you. At least mine did.

 

And *now* you can expect real help, if still necessary.

 

I didn't see you respond to it (but may have skipped it) but a Young DAC does your desired 352.8, and it does it over USB 2.0. A bit of a problem here too, because read into everything and you'll see that drivers prevent to do that really (well). But careful, because my info here is from two weeks back, and it *will* matter.

If you'd had this year behind you (actually it needs two in this case) you'd also know that drivers like this may never come to some satisfactory end. Hey, did I mention RME drivers ? they are the exception. Your USB3, I guess, *will* put an end to that, but I don't think this was your subject really.

 

I think two more 384 DACs exist, but both are really for Pro useage and will be out of your budget. Besides, one is not for "commercial use" hence is not on the market (and never will I think).

If there are more of them, I can't read - or keep up with all myself.

 

Last one :

 

If you are a manufacturer with a financial interest in the status quo

 

Ah, that one passed before. Ok.

What I couldn't know is that you don't read sigs. Fine. But now, assuming that you are somewhat further on this matter, try to see what I really wanted to say here. But *foremost* think what would be the logical merit to me, were it for my expectations from you who *should have* dug into sigs and stuff. So you see, "my DAC" is ahead of everything and all, and indeed I could have wanted a Status Quo etc.; but not when someone (you, as it was clear to me) doesn't know all in the first place. Then it's just some shouting.

And oh, before you ask, all is a tad more complicated to interpret, because (I can tell you) my underlaying real message was that we don't need USB 3, Firewire800 or whatever you can come up with for interface means, because I don't use any of them.

By now, hopefully, you'll also see why things can be put very indirectly and inherently vague, because I *am* crossing limits (forum rules) with these more extensive explanations (still trying to be as vague as poissible). But you know, if you'd have the guts and time to really dig it all up, this wouldn't be necessary at all, and this last quote would have been sufficient. It doesn't cross any limits (IMO), and just would be a hint for someone who wonders.

 

Allright. I mean well, so I hope you take it like that.

If you think this is a stupid post, so be it.

If you appreciate it as demeaning, no, please don't. I was before perhaps, but felt it was needed ...

If you don't understand a freakin' thing about it all, it will be my english. You'll have my apologizes then, but I can't help it.

 

Kind regards,

Peter

 

[logicsound]

Hi PeterSt

 

Thanks for your response.

 

"But now you see how people like me make can fairly easy jump to (correct) conclusions about perceived "knowledge" and the real merits of a first post like what's in this thread. By now though, it looks like you didn't set your mind so much at all, and instead just wasn't "knowledgeable" enough."

 

First I did read your signature and was one of the first to download your player years ago. I like it, but right now prefer Foobar with SOX. I will have to download the latest version and give it another listen. I have not heard your DAC.

 

Going back to the original thread I still believe we will be using USB 3.0 widely in the next 2 years. We need a replacement of the SPDIF - one that is standardized and widely adapted I2S/HDMI possibly. One with less inherent jitter issues and higher throughput rates. I prefer a two box solution - PC/MAC interface -why. One is flexibility, another is my preference for a tubed output stage in the DAC with transformer coupling (not many around), and preferably discrete and/or heavily regulated power supplies.

 

This is versus the usual opamp cap coupled output stages in the new async USB DAC coming to market. I know other will disagree. I prefer the more holoistic sound of tubes - particularly NOS/Cryo versions.

 

I know this will be very controversial - I like upsampling Redbook - the best I have heard is the free SOX upsampler run on a fast quad core at 24/192. This has increased the detail retrieval of 16/44 redbook wave files, it also in my system increases the musicality of the sound.

 

So the reason for my focus on hirez is not just for those obscure recordings available at 24/192 but my vast collection of redbook upsampled. Hardware based upsampling (and I have many DACs with hardware upsampling) does not sound as good in my opinion.

 

I started with orginal Secret Rabbit code, then SSRC, then SOX, the Wavelab Crystal resampler, etc... I really like SOX. SOX is several years old, computing power has grown substantially since then.

 

In the future we will likely see more sophisticated algorithmic based upsamplers and phase distortion correction programs available. BURWEN BOBCAT was the beginning - much more powerful/sophisticated algos are coming. So will offer upsampling/correction to much high sampling rates.

 

The question can your PC interface/DAC handle these very large data streams. 24/192 from async USB 2.0 is not a big deal - we had that back four years ago.

 

I think there is a habit of those audio engineer that post here and other places that feel they know everything and that everyone else is a moron. I am the first to admit I don't. The holier then thou attitude of this community puts off many new enthusiasts, the reason high end audio is dying. Hence the reason I and many of my friends don't participate in these chat rooms. I know one Engineer/manufacturer who has just produced a new piece of digital equipment based on another Engineers hard work and struts around like he discovered electricity - sad - quite a turn off. In the old days folks were more civil - one didn't have to be deemed "knowledgeable enough" by a bunch of blowhards to be able to post their ideas. You guys have become the Judge, Jury and Executioner. I believe it is because these blogs have become nothing but a marketing medium to hype their products.

 

Four years ago on another forum I had a vigorous debate with Gordon Rankin on the advantages of FW800 over the then USB 2.0 non-async standard for high end audio. His product could only handle a 24/96 signal at that time. Although Gordon was quite civil (especially compared to today) I remember his and his cohorts trying to argue why USB no-async was not a problem, there was no need to ever go over 24/96 capabilities, Firewire was dead, etc... I knew nothing because I was not an audio Engineer. Years later low and behold, after much hard work async USB 2.0 is the holy grail! How many bought those old USB DACs that later regretted it. Mean while the FF800 system I built four years ago is still at the cutting edge able to handle any 32/192 file or upsample with ease. Money well spent. I am very reluctant to spend hard earned money today on what may be obsolete in four years.

 

You say "read and read then read some more" no I prefer to listen, improve, then listen some more.

 

This is my last post - good luck to you all. I'll go on improving my system and listening to great music - you guys can enjoy hacking away at each other on your keyboards for hours on end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lars]

I am still trying to figure out what the new revolution with USB 3.0 is. The extra bandwidth adds nothing to the capabilities we now have or will have in the near future. The OP confuses USB 2.0 with USB Audio Class 2.

 

The rest of the above post is a self congratulatory expression of narcissism.

 

 

 

 

[beetlemania]

"I am still trying to figure out what the new revolution with USB 3.0 is"

 

I agree, Lars. The extra bandwidth is irrelevant and I see no compelling argument for any other benefit from USB 3.0. There were at least four manufacturers on the thread over at AA . . . I'm supposed to believe that all of them want to maintain the status quo in the face of some dramatically superior technology? Ooookaayyyy! Yep, none of them are music lovers and none of them want to make the best product possible.

 

The OP appears to have a four year old grudge against Gordon Rankin and it's payback time.

 

[Tipper]

A bit off topic I’m afraid but given the OP has abandoned ship I hope this is okay.

We could do with a better method of connecting USB if anyone wants a worthwhile project.

I thought one of the benefits of USB data transfer was the plug and play convenience; well I’ve been plugging and playing unplugging and playing some more, possibly a few times a day and USB plugs just aren’t up to the job imo.

I’ve got through 3 cables and worn out a laptop USB socket in under a year.

 

 

[Panelhead]

I do not know the agenda, but you raised the level of discussion. I too think USB 3.0 will become an important implimentation in the future. It is way before it's time now.

My dac is connected to the computer via FW400. FW800 has not made it to the pro dacs I use. But the computer and some of the external drives use it.

For my interest, what dac did you use to switch to FW800 four years ago? I am expecting my next dac will be USB, even Apple appears to be phasing FW out. Sad.

 

George

 

[steve2701]

I see asking what should be a very important question - even politely - gains not a response, just more technical talk. Tipper - as per my above post, our chances of getting a high quality, robust and well thought out connector will never see the light of day if it cannot be made ultra cheap and enclose encryption. Mind you, those selling even cheap cables and those who repair product would not be to happy about it.

I have no problem with going USB3 - USB (whatever) but would like to see a rise in musical enjoyment as a benefit, or why bother? Just because you need the latest bling? Maybe I'm getting too old for this.

 

 

[losingmyreligion]

 

 

"FW800 has not made it to the pro dacs I use."

 

That's actually a very significant point. The pro DACs handling 8 (or more) channels of high sample rate data do not need even FW800, let alone something the speed of USB 3.

 

As I said above, none of the leading contenders for top Firewire DAC (IMO) sport FW800 ports - not the Weiss DAC202, Metric Halo DACs, nor the Prism Orpheus.

 

I'll admit to wishing I had faster connections to hard drives when I'm backing up a hard drive, or moving a large library to another disk. But that's about it.

 

clay

 

 

[PeterSt]

This is my last post - good luck to you all. I'll go on improving my system and listening to great music - you guys can enjoy hacking away at each other on your keyboards for hours on end.

 

No, don't. Why ? I think you got angry during writing your last post. There's no need to ... well, I think. But now look at the responses again. Where did those come from ?

 

You took quite some time to write your "last post ever" here, and there's really not much wrong with it. Well, not that *I* can see. Some opinions (personal), and why not. Okay, SoX and such being in XX in the first place, but I certainly don't promote that, so why would you have noticed it (but please think about this too).

 

I think there is a habit of those audio engineer that post here and other places that feel they know everything and that everyone else is a moron.

 

You see, you got angry. I don't think you are talking to me (but if so, ok, I deserved that for sure), and who else ? ah, Charles maybe. But you were already done and over with him.

 

So the reason for my focus on hirez is not just for those obscure recordings available at 24/192 but my vast collection of redbook upsampled. Hardware based upsampling (and I have many DACs with hardware upsampling) does not sound as good in my opinion.

 

Hey, why do you say this ? I mean, why now ?

I said it; at least I agree "with yout last post". Here's an explicit example of it.

Take it up to 352.8, and you agree with me, and we agree with another poster in this thread. DXD actually, but a little faked. Still the way to go. Well, my opinion.

And yours.

 

You say "read and read then read some more" no I prefer to listen, improve, then listen some more.

 

But wait. If only everyone would be like that. If only I could myself. But you started the thread and subject. Yea, by now maybe you wonder yourself, and I think this is very okay.

But while you are easy on admitting things openly, why end a post like you did and end up angry ?

 

Let me end with this :

I don't recall I have been "shouting" ever, anywhere, without being shouted at first. Here I did. For everything a first time I guess. I did, but at least for me this turned out to be unjustified. Nobody asks me to say this, and sure you did not. Still I say it.

I am just trying to be open; you did too.

 

Don't know what to say more.

Peter

 

 

[sq225917]

logicsound, I have the Young DAC from M2tech, with a little upgraded linear supply for it, plugged into my Macbook-Pro. It's happy with DXD, though it upsamples them to 384 currently as the driver has a bug in for 352. Should be fixed in the next re-write.

 

I use Decibel (Ayrewave) as my software player and it all works fine.

 

All the sampling, filtering and USB input receiver code in on custom silicon, the dac chip is run 'headless', ie data is piped into it directly, bypassing the usual on-chip up/over sampling stages.

 

It's a nice sounding little box and I'm very pleased with it.

 

[Liam]

logicsound, I have the Young DAC from M2tech, with a little upgraded linear supply for it, plugged into my Macbook-Pro. It's happy with DXD, though it upsamples them to 384 currently as the driver has a bug in for 352. Should be fixed in the next re-write.

 

I use Decibel (Ayrewave) as my software player and it all works fine.

 

All the sampling, filtering and USB input receiver code in on custom silicon, the dac chip is run 'headless', ie data is piped into it directly, bypassing the usual on-chip up/over sampling stages.

 

It's a nice sounding little box and I'm very pleased with it.

 

And Audirvana + player allows now adjustment of filter frequency, rise and decay characteristics.

[spacey]

And ....... in 36 months time there will be USB4.0... keep waiting.

[matthias]

Chris,

 

I was digging through the posts on that thread about DXD. This was an interesting comment from Bruce Brown at Puget Sound Studios. This was in response to one of your questions.

 

They chose the DXD version to master - that was obviously more work - I'm sure they did that because it sounded better.

 

Did anyone in Seattle get to hear those Master recordings?

 

 

"Yes, we were in Japan recording the Yamamoto Trio. This was recorded at 4 different resolutions. The studio recorded at 24/192 on a Pro Tools rig and on 1/4" tape. We recorded from the SSL 9k mixing board into DSD and DXD. The DXD version was used for the production CD. I will have to say a surround feed was also captured at DSD and DXD for possible future release.

We then took the files back to our studio and listened carefully to each one and chose the DXD version to master.

 

Regards,

__________________

 

Bruce A. Brown

Puget Sound Studios

Seattle, Washington"

 

How cool would it be to be able to purchase those DXD recordings and play!

 

logicsound,

 

Bruce Brown liked the DSD64 more than the DXD:

 

Vinyl and CD differences - Page 34

 

KR

 

matthias

[VandyMan]

My own prediction is that HDMI and WiFi (eg AirPlay, etc) will become far more common in DACs than USB 3.0 ever will.

 

Original post: How long before the 24/192 barrier is broken? Do I hear a 64/384 coming?

 

No. There is no reason to have 64-bits per sample. It will do nothing for sound quality. The only reason it would ever be used is for heavy duty pro-audio processing and I doubt more than 32-bits will ever be widely used even for that.

[Paul R]

I have to say, this is interesting, though I also do not see any benefit, technological or audible, to USB-3 vs. USB2.

 

Firewire has always been (arguably) superior to USB, but not universally available. Windows, for example, has execrable drivers for firewire audio. I think that well done Asynch USB-2 brings USB to a parity with Firewire.

 

Have you looked at Thunderbolt? It seems rather - impressive - to me. It might have audio similar to HDMI though. And HDMI is not too shabby on the audio front either, if a bit expensive.

 

-Paul

 

 

Hi Eloise

"PS. On the original topic... Buy a DAC now an listen to music and be happy. As others have said USB3 offers nothing new for the audio lover."

 

I will be the first to admit, this cutting edge stuff is not for everyone. But some want to push the envelope. We can not be so sure USB 3.0 "offers nothing new for the audio lover", until we hear it.

 

But I'm glad you are completely satisfied with your system - I'm a bit jealous!

[Sam Lord]

There is no reason to have 64-bits per sample. It will do nothing for sound quality. The only reason it would ever be used is for heavy duty pro-audio processing and I doubt more than 32-bits will ever be widely used even for that.

Re. 64 bit samples, indeed. The OP never learned the meaning of "exponent."

 

However 64 bit float is a *minimum* for eq and compression, 32 bits only for level changes. The rounding errors accumulate fast and furiously, especially in layered tracks or envelopes.

[Julf]

Re. 64 bit samples, indeed. The OP never learned the meaning of "exponent."

 

However 64 bit float is a *minimum* for eq and compression, 32 bits only for level changes. The rounding errors accumulate fast and furiously, especially in layered tracks or envelopes.

 

Absolutely. It is very important to remember the distinction between the number of bits needed for recording, storage and reproduction (where 24 is more than enough) and processing (where you need floats and 64 or 80 bits, if not more to avoid rounding errors).

[MikeJazz]

logicsound brought an interesting topic to us, but unfortunately he made his postings very difficult to read (he was not at the cutting edge of quoting, by the way).

So sorry, I will not read it all, but will await patiently for the development of usb3.0.

 

Anyway, PC guide is not my favorite reading.

I suspect that, before it's used in audio, usb3.0 will be used by the folks that need to move porn very fast...:-) :-)

[rdsu]

Forgetting about the speed, USB 3.0 has a better protocol and electrical interface, that also reduce electromagnetic interference (EMI) (Info from Wikipedia), so this can also improve something, at least a lot of users already found the USB 3.0 cards and inputs to sound better that USB 2.0...

 

PCIe USB 3.0 host card

My C.A.P.S. V3 Build - Boekeloo

C.A.P.S v3 Lagoon Review

HOW I´VE BUILT MY NEW PC FOR XXHIGHEND AND WHY I´VE CHOSEN THE COMPONENTS

[AudioDoctor]

For those arguing about this, Apple has solved the problem with Thunderbolt. If you want a USB3 or a Firewire connection they will happily sell you an adapter.

[DRB]

Hi Chris - I love your website. No I'm not in the audio business in anyway nor associated with anyone in the business. I'm strictly a high end user, and have been for many years.

 

I am seeking a USB 3.0 DAC for my own system. I have what I believe is a SOTA system now, but would like to see if I can't improve it even further.

 

I am amazed at your not being able to see how USB 3.0 would be a game changer. The benefits are numerous and listed in my post - as to whether they will translate into better sound - that remains to be seen and will depend, like so much in audio, on implementation.

 

I am hoping to prod a few manufacturers to explore this as an option, as it is the natural tendency to stay with what they have out on the market now. After all it does cost money to develop these things. Naturally a company with a product that might be leapfrogged by a move to a new revolutionary technology might be inclined to discredit the need for such an advance, or dismiss it as an "incremental" advance.

 

After all what did everyone say about computer audio a few years ago - it'll never beat the spinning disc on sound quality (especially SACD and DVDA). I know in my many, many years of building these music systems and experimenting with many solutions, ie USB 2.0 high speed async, Firewire 400 and 800, CAT9/PCIe based interfaces and DACS what these systems are capable of. At least to my ears my current Firewire 800 music server exceeds a redbook CD and comes very close to SACD - all from 16/44 wave files. With my 32/176 archived LP files - nothing compares (except the LP itself - but I sold my $30,000 analogue set-up, after archiving to devote the funds to rest of my system- kept the vinyl though - maybe one day to re-archive at 64/352). During my archiving process, I spent many months painstakingly comparing 24/88, 24/96, 24/176, 24/192, 32/176 and 32/192 archived recordings. The winner every time were the 32/176 files - 90% to 95% of the actual LP, incredible. The difference between 16/44 and 24/96 was huge - the difference between 24/96 and 32/176 was quite large. interestingly 32/192 was very slightly inferior to 32/176. So every last LP (hundreds) were archived at the level (three - 1Tb hard drives full!). The point is these higher resolutions do make a difference. Will 64/352 be an even greater improvement? The evidence strongly suggests so. What about even higher rates? What about very complex algorithms that can upsample a 16/44 to these higher resolutions - experimenting with Wavelab 6.0 the results were better playing an up sampled/converted file versus upsampling on the fly in real time.

 

A few years ago people would laugh at the thought of 24/192 audio files - who needs that level of resolution? Isn't 24/96 enough? Where will you find such recordings? Well look at where we are today. And at the rate of technological advancement - and the appetite of those looking for SOTA music reproduction - the 24/192 barrier will be broken in the not to distant future. I know I am ready.

 

With the price of storage dropping rapidly - 1.5 T hard drives now below $100 - storage is no longer the issue (why would anyone compress their wave files now?).

 

Sincerely, I have been searching high and low for a USB 3.0 DAC or interface and have not seen anything yet. I am in the market to buy.

The PCs with USB 3.0 are already readily available - how long before it is standard on the higher level machines and USB 2.0 is phased out? Maybe available on the entry level boxes only. Look at some of the issues folks are having with their USB 2.0 DACs working with a USB 3.0 PC.

 

PS I noticed you did not list the RME Fireface 800 on your list of DAC/PC interfaces. It is the only one I know of that uses the higher throughput FireWire 1394b. Several reviewers in the UK use it in their reference system. I respectfully request you add it your list so potential buyers would be aware it exists, it really is unique (and I have tried to many to list).

 

Thanks!

 

I think the highest res USB DAC is the DaVinci an it does 24/384 and costs a lot of money, not to mention the expensive cable needed since a lot of cables don't give full bandwidth.

 

I don't know if that uses USB 3.0, I think that is still a USB 2.0 device if I'm not mistaken. Light Harmonic makes it and they are $9000+